alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY JOSEPH CARLSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-35157 

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00072-JLQ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Timothy Joseph Carlson appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a coram nobis 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35157 

petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). The 

district court correctly denied Carlson’s petition. Carlson is still in custody and,

therefore, cannot show that a more usual remedy is unavailable to attack his 

conviction. See id. at 761 (“A person in custody may seek relief pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. Because the more usual remedy of a habeas petition is available, 

the writ of error coram nobis is not.” (footnote omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set

forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 

1

 The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30842

Summary Calendar

DAVID BOURG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MOBIL OIL CORP.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CV-862)

May 24, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

DavidBourg appeals an adverse summary judgment in his Louisiana tort law

action against Mobil Oil Corporation. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

Bourg was injured while working at a Mobil base in Cameron, Louisiana.

At the time, he was nominally employed by Excalibur Support Services, Inc. The

district court1found that Mobil wasBourg’s “borrowed” employer under Louisiana

workers’ compensation law and, thus, was immune from this tort suit for Bourg’s
 

2

 Because the district court found that Mobil was entitled to summary judgment

under the borrowed employee doctrine, it did not address Mobil’s alternative

contention that it was immune from suit as Bourg’s statutory employer.

 

3

 International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991).

 

4

 Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Univs., 940 F.2d 121 (5th

Cir. 1991).

 

5

 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

2

personal injuries allegedly sustained on the work premises.2

On appeal of a summary judgment our review of the record is plenary3 and

we apply the same standard as that used by the district court.4 We view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and, if we find no genuine

dispute of material fact, deem summary judgment appropriate.5

Our review of the record and briefsfiled herein discloses no reversible error.

Accordingly, on the facts as found, the authorities cited, and analysis made by the

district court in its Memorandum Ruling granting Mobil’s motion for summary

judgment signed and filed July 7, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1456 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1456

    To reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2011

 Mr. Kind (for himself and Mr. Gerlach) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION 
              ACT.

    Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 6109) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Fund to carry out this Act such sums as are 
necessary for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2017, to remain 
available until expended, of which not less than 75 percent of the 
amounts made available for each fiscal year shall be expended for 
projects carried out outside the United States.''; and
            (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
        (b) and (c), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
IB 

Union Calendar No. 46 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1657 

[Report No. 112–85] 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties 

for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern 

owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned 

and controlled by service-disabled veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. STUTZMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

MAY 20, 2011 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1657 RH

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern owned and controlled 

by veterans or as a small business concern owned and 

controlled by service-disabled veterans. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1657 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EN4 FORCEMENT PENALTIES FOR MISREPRESEN5 TATION OF A BUSINESS CONCERN AS A 

6 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN OWNED AND 

7 CONTROLLED BY VETERANS OR AS A SMALL 

8 BUSINESS CONCERN OWNED AND CON9 TROLLED BY SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS. 

10 Subsection (g) of section 8127 of title 38, United 

11 States Code, is amended— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘Any business’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘(1) Any business’’; 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘a reasonable period of time, as 

15 determined by the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘a pe16 riod of not less than five years’’; and 

17 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

18 paragraphs: 

19 ‘‘(2) In the case of a debarment under paragraph (1), 

20 the Secretary shall commence debarment action against 

21 the business concern by not later than 30 days after deter22 mining that the concern misrepresented the status of the 

23 concern as described in paragraph (1) and shall complete 

24 debarment actions against such concern by not later than 

25 90 days after such determination. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1657 RH

1 ‘‘(3) The debarment of a business concern under 

2 paragraph (1) includes the debarment of all principals in 

3 the business concern for a period of not less than five 

4 years.’’. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 46 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1657 

[Report No. 112–85] 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise 

disabled veterans. business concern owned and controlled by serviceowned and controlled by veterans or as a small of a business concern as a small business concern the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation 

MAY 20, 2011 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Petition for Exemption, requesting relief from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public

Law 112

- 95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333. Whereas, Skybender Aviation currently, under individual ownership, seeks relief from airworthiness certification requirements from the above mentioned regulations. Skybender Aviation has b een in existence since 4/24/2015 with the express purpose of providing aerial videography for Realtors and private homeowners. Skybender Aviation is represented by David Bendersky , sole proprietor. Personal Information of Applicant: David Bendersky 3025 NE 103 rd St Seattle WA 98125 Skybender Aviation seeks this exemption under the guidelines of Section333 specifically as it relates to the Real Estate Industry in the greater Seattle area under the small UAS rule. We believe that we have put together a program as responsible operators of an UAS that will stand as an exemplary model on whom many others entering the market will emulate. Under the terms of this exemption, it is our intention to safely fly an UAS, specifically a DJI Phantom 2 with an H3 2D gimbal and mounted GoPro Hero3 camera. Additionally the drone vehicle maintains a FPV connect ivity utilizing an Immersion 5.8 GHz 600mW antenna linked with a Lumeneer 5” field monitor, allowing the pilot to see exactly what the GoPro camera sees. Additionally, our pilot w ears a camera mo unted pair of glasses in order to record the actual drone fli ght, ensuring a recording of safe and responsible flight. As air safety is of paramount importance, Skybender Aviation uses a highly structured safety flight manual for our pilot as w ell as observer. As recent as the new proposed FAA regulation released as of February of 2015, Skybender Aviation intends to operate w ell within the most stringent proposal required to operate an unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). We are prepared to attend any required course of study, participate in fli ght evaluation and pay any required fee(s) that may be instituted. We have many hundreds of combined hours of safe flying in the recreational mode. Along with this Petition we are respectfully submitting the following support documents. Exhibit A: Presents our proposed safety guidelines and their implementation incorporated into our Skybender Aviation POLICY & PROCEDURES Manual. Exhibit B: Presents Sky bender Aviation PERMISSION/WAIVER document.
NO. SCPW-12-0000833

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RICHARD K. PERKINS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(S.P.P. NO. 12-1-0011)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

On October 2, 2012, this court filed a document

entitled “Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” which was submitted by

petitioner Michael C. Tierney. Petitioner seeks an order from

this court directing the Honorable Richard K. Perkins to conduct

an evidentiary hearing and appoint counsel for him in S.P.P. No.

12-1-0011. Based upon our review of the petition for a writ of

mandamus, the document attached thereto and submitted in support

thereof, and the record, it appears that at this time, petitioner

fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right

to relief and lacks alternative means to obtain the requested

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000833

24-OCT-2012

11:00 AM
relief. Therefore, although more than ninety (90) days have

passed since the State of Hawai#i filed its answer to the Rule 40

petition and petitioner filed his motion for the appointment of

counsel, and although petitioner is entitled to a ruling thereon,

he is not entitled to the mandamus relief requested. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 24, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                           THOMPSON & KNIGHT L.L.P.
                        1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3300
                              Dallas, Texas 75201

                                  MEMORANDUM

TO:       Jack D. Hightower and Pure Resources, Inc.

FROM:     Thompson & Knight L.L.P.

RE:       Employment Agreement between Pure Resources, Inc., a Delaware
          corporation (formerly named Titan Resources Holdings, Inc.), and Jack
          D. Hightower, which became effective as effective as of May 25, 2000
          upon consummation of the merger transaction with Titan Exploration,
          Inc.

DATE:     July 20, 2000
================================================================================

     It has come to our attention that the referenced Employment Agreement
contains an error in Section 18(f)(iii), which relates to "Continuing Company
Shares. The number "1,888,582" in such subsection should be "1,917,194." Such
latter number reflects the conversion of 4,456,198 shares of common stock of
Titan Exploration, Inc. (the number of shares directly and beneficially owned by
Mr. Hightower as of December 1, 1999) into 1,917,194 shares of Pure Resources,
Inc. common stock pursuant to the merger agreement.

     Please evidence your acceptance of the above correction by signing below.


/s/ Jack Hightower
-----------------------------
Jack D. Hightower


PURE RESOURCES, INC.


By: /s/ William K. White
   --------------------------
        William K. White
        Vice President Finance,
        Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11--STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

COMMERCIAL BANCSHARES, INCORPORATED

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                Year Ended December 31
PRIMARY:                                         1997            1996
                                           ------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>             <C>
Average shares outstanding                     1,616,187       1,616,187

Net Income                                    $2,937,025      $4,781,011
                                           ------------------------------


Applicable to common stock                    $2,937,025      $4,781,011
                                           ==============================

Per Share Amount                              $     1.82      $     2.96


FULLY DILUTED:
Average shares outstanding                     1,616,187       1,616,187
                                           ------------------------------


TOTAL                                          1,616,187       1,616,187
                                           ==============================

Net Income                                    $2,937,025      $4,781,011
                                           ==============================

Per Share Amount                              $     1.82      $     2.96
</TABLE>

                                 Page 54 of 57
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1451 

To repeal a modification of authority to make certain interval payments 

of educational assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2011 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself and Mr. HUNTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal a modification of authority to make certain interval 

payments of educational assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Post 9/11 GI Bill Pay5 ment Restoration Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1451 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO 

2 MAKE CERTAIN INTERVAL PAYMENTS OF 

3 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER LAWS AD4 MINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VET5 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) REPEAL.—The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational 

7 Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 

8 377) is amended by striking section 206. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact11 ment of this Act. 

12 SEC. 3. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT FEDERAL FUNDS TO OFF 

13 SET LOSS IN REVENUES. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi15 sion of law, of all available unobligated funds equal to the 

16 amount required to implement this Act in appropriated 

17 discretionary funds are hereby rescinded. 

18 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Director of the Office of 

19 Management and Budget shall determine and identify 

20 funding from appropriation accounts that has been 

21 deemed duplicative by the Government Accountability Of22 fice, and the rescission under subsection (a) shall apply 

23 and the amount of such rescission that shall apply to each 

24 such account. Not later than 60 days after the date of 

25 the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 

26 Management and Budget shall submit a report to the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:26 Apr 11, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1451.IH H1451

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1451 IH

1 retary of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and 

2 amounts determined and identified for rescission under 

3 the preceding sentence. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The State, ex rel. Slovensky, *v.*Taylor, Dir. of Dept. of Liquor Control.

(No. 27525

Decided July 5, 1939.)

*J.Messrs. Phillips &*Palsgraf, for relator.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general,, and/Mr. *John P. Walsh,*for respondent. ~

*602By the 'Court.

Upon examination of the pertinent statutes of Ohio relating to civil service, a majority of the court is of the opinion that one receiving a provisional appointment under Section 486-14, General Code, in the absence of an eligible list, becomes an appointee in the classified service within the contemplation of Section 486-8 (b), General Code, entitled to retain his position during good behavior and efficient service,-until the establishment of an eligible list, or until his services are terminated by arriving at the mandatory retirement age, or until the abolishment of the position, or a lay-off.,

Being in the classified service, he may not be summarily dismissed; his removal is governed by-Section *486-17a,*General Code.

The demurrer to the petition is overruled and, it being agreed that such determination is dispositive of the case, the writ is allowed.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams and Myers, JJ., concur.
### October 29, 2013

Source: U.S. Energy Information Admi nistration, based on Drillinginfo In 2011 and 2012, more than 50% of new wells produced both oil and natural gas. Despite this phenomenon, many traditional methods for estimating oil and natural gas production attempt to track the development of oil and natural gas as separate rathe r than j oint activities

. The analytical framework of EIA's new Drilling Productivity Report(DPR) accounts for integrated production of natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons. In some cases, the classification of oil- or gas-targeted rigs, which is the focus of traditional rig-count metho ds, has changed from day to day. A more meaningful way to classify wells is to allocate the amount of oil and natural gas that can be expected to flow from each new well in a given play. This approach uses oil and natural gas production at the well before any f laring, refining, or gas processing. As such, all hydrocarbon production in the liquid state at the wellhead is treated as oil, and all unprocessed gas production (known as gross production) is treated as natural gas. Oil and natural gas producers adjust their formation targeting in response to changes in the market value of natural gas and li quid hydrocarbons in an attempt to focus on the more profitable products. In some plays, careful study of the geology allows the pro ducers to maximize production of the more profitable hydrocarbons (liquids or gases), based on current and expected market prices. 

### Drilling often results in both oil and natural gas production - Today in En... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13 571

1 of 2 1/21/2014 3:39 PM

### Source: U.S. Energy Information Admi nistration, based on Drillinginfo Note: Mcf = thousand cubic feet; bbl = barrel; Btu = British thermal units For example, the chart above shows the decrease in the ratio of natural gas to oil production from new wells drilled in the Eag le Ford region. This decrease coin cided with the widespread applicatio n of horizontal drilling and hydrau lic fracturing techniques in l iquids-rich reservoirs and a relative increase in the price of oil compared to the price of natural gas. The production estimates developed in the DPR include both the oil and natural gas volumes produced from typical new wells in a region without attempting to distinguish between oil and natural gas coming from wells designated as oil wells or gas wells. By aggregating portfolios of active rigs in specific regions with observable oil and natural gas production characteristics, EIA'sapproach shows emerging trends and produces improved estimates of production in the current and following month. For a dynamic perspective of the shale gas and other tight oil development in the Eagle Ford, see EIA's animation of new well locations over time

. Afuture Today in Energy article will focus on how drilling efficiency relates to estimates of oil and natural gas production. Principal contributors: Jozef Lieskovsky, Sam Gorgen 

### Drilling often results in both oil and natural gas production - Today in En... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13 571

2 of 2 1/21/2014 3:39 PM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 27, 2019 p0327

Order 

Clerk

March 27, 2019

158040

OLD ORCHARD BRANDS LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158040

COA: 337463

Court of Claims: 16-000114-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2018 judgment 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.